Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SORIANO v. TOWN OF CICERO

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division


November 19, 2004.

JOSE SORIANO, Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF CICERO, OFFICER DINO VITALO, OFFICER JASON STRUD, OFFICER VITO PACIONE, OFFICER STEVE HENDRICK, OFFICER SCOTT HARRIS, and OFFICER JEFF PAWELSKI, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN W. DARRAH, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Jose Soriano, filed suit against Defendants, the Town of Cicero, Officer Dino Vitalo, Officer Jason Strud, Officer Vito Pacione, Officer Steve Hendrick, Officer Scott Harris, and Officer Jeff Pawelski. Plaintiff brings a number of claims against Defendants, including claims under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 for: (1) excessive force, (2) failure to intervene, and (3) false arrest and unlawful detention. The Town of Cicero has brought a criminal action against Plaintiff, alleging that Plaintiff committed a number of criminal offenses arising out of the same occurrence. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Stay. Plaintiff seeks to stay all proceedings in this action until the completion of the criminal action against Plaintiff in state court. For the following reasons, that motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

  The facts, for the purposes of this motion, are as follows. Plaintiff alleges that some of the Defendant officers used unjustified, unlawful force in shooting Plaintiff through the spinal Here, Plaintiff has failed to identify how his constitutional claims in this case will interfere with the state criminal proceeding; the criminal claims deal with Plaintiff's conduct before he was injured. As such, Younger abstention is not appropriate.

  Plaintiff contends that the Holten case was effectively stayed because the discovery could not be completed. Plaintiff also argues that, in this case, Defendants have already refused to produce discovery because that would cause interference with the criminal case. However, discovery was stayed in Holten based on an assertion of privilege by the defendants. Holten v. City of Genoa, No. 02 C 50201, 2003 WL 22118941, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 2003). The issue of privilege is not properly before the Court.

  Based on the above, Younger abstention is not warranted.

  CONCLUSION

  For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Stay is denied.

20041119

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.